| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
| Date: | 2024-05-17 15:05:42 |
| Message-ID: | 2397278.1715958342@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:31 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If we go back to the old its-development-mode-all-the-time approach,
>> what is likely to happen is that the commit rate for not-your-own-
>> patches goes to zero, because it's always possible to rationalize
>> your own stuff as being more important.
> We already have gone back to that model. We just haven't admitted it
> yet. And we're never going to get out of it until we find a way to get
> the contents of the CommitFest application down to a more reasonable
> size and level of complexity. There's just no way everyone's up for
> that level of pain. I'm not sure not up for that level of pain.
Yeah, we clearly need to get the patch list to a point of
manageability, but I don't agree that abandoning time-boxed CFs
will improve anything.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-05-17 15:22:44 | Re: improve performance of pg_dump --binary-upgrade |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-05-17 14:56:23 | Re: WAL record CRC calculated incorrectly because of underlying buffer modification |